JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: - The petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Kamal @ Sushil (brother), Roshan Lal (father) and Tanny @ Manpreet (cousin brother), vide FIR No.160 dated 11.06.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Ferozepur. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that, on 11.06.2013 at about 9.00 AM, as soon as, complainant-Loveleen Kumar and his father Ashok Kumar(deceased) were present at their commission agent shop, in the meantime, the petitioner armed with baseball bat, his brother Kamal @ Sushil & cousin brother Tanny @ Manpreet armed with iron rods and father Roshan Lal empty handed came there. Thereafter, Roshan Lal raised a ‘lalkara’ that they be taught a lesson for parking their vehicles in front of their shop. Then, he caught hold of Ashok Kumar, whereas main accused Kamal @ Sushil and Tanny @ Manpreet gave single blows each with their respective iron rods, which landed on the head of Ashok Kumar. He felled on the ground after receipt of injuries. Thereafter, it was vaguely alleged that the petitioner and Tanny @ Manpreet inflicted injuries on the head of Ashok Kumar with their respective weapons. 5. Meaning thereby, all the main injuries on the head of Ashok Kumar with iron rod are attributed to main accused Kamal @ Sushil and Tanny @ Manpreet(non-petitioners). At the same time, perusal of the post mortem report(Annexure P-2) would reveal that there were only three injuries on the person of the deceased. Injuries No.1 and 3 attributed to main accused Kamal @ Sushil and Tanny @ Manpreet were on the head, whereas injury No.2 was on the chest of the deceased. Therefore, the version of the prosecution that the petitioner had also caused an injury with baseball bat on the head of the deceased, is totally contradicted and falsified by the post mortem report(Annexure P-2). Therefore, the version of the prosecution that the petitioner had also caused an injury with baseball bat on the head of the deceased, is totally contradicted and falsified by the post mortem report(Annexure P-2). As indicated here-in-above, the petitioner is son of Roshan Lal and brother of other co-accused Kamal @ Sushil. In this manner, the possibility of his false implication in this case, in order to increase the number of accused(family members), cannot be ruled out, at this stage. In that eventuality, as to whether the penal provision of vicarious liability, as contemplated under Section 34 IPC, is attracted to the facts relatable to the case of the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial after acceptance of evidence by the trial Court. 6. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested in this case on 21.06.2013. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Not only that, Roshan Lal, co-accused and father of the petitioner, has already been granted the concession of regular bail, by means of order dated July 14, 2014 in CRM No.M-18727 of 2014 by this Court. Moreover, the final conclusion of de novo trial will naturally take a long time. 7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits in the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————